> On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the > > AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify > > that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian > > packaging. Then the AM would ask for comments about the applicant from > > other DDs, like it is already being done for DM. That would make the AM > > report a lot shorter to read, and spread the load on all DDs, that would > > have to write recommandation emails about the applicant (including links > > to work the applicant has done). It would also help avoid > > socially-problematic applicants, because it would be a de-facto > > requirement to work with several other DDs before becoming a DD. > > I really don't think this is a good idea. In general most of the delays > are not on the part of the AM. I would like to see that area be reformed > and I agree with the people who would think it should be a check, not > teaching. Referrals from other DDs, experience as a DM, evidence of good > contribution to debian; all of these things can be used to judge a > candidate's suitability, but I would see this as an opportunity to > increase our quality control in reform, not decrease it. It would be very nice if the referrals from multiple DD and evidence of good contribution to Debian are performed (long) before the advocacy act takes place. The more conservative advocacy approach we take, the more successful NM-process would be. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.